
The meanings of Mein Kampf
Hitler began writing the book during a period of enforced idleness following his arrest and imprisonment for leading a violent attempt to overthrow the state government of Bavaria on 9 November 1923 – the so-called Beer Hall Putsch – which ended in a hail of bullets fired at him and his Nazi supporters by the Bavarian police. Brought to trial in Munich on 26 February 1924, Hitler claimed that he had acted purely out of patriotic motives. He regarded the democratic political order of the Weimar Republic, founded in the wake of Germany's defeat in the First World War and the overthrow of the Kaiser, as an expression of anti-German sentiments. It was dominated by liberals and socialists who had put their names to what he saw as Germany's betrayal in the Treaty of Versailles. He found a willing listener in the judge, Georg Neithardt, who allowed him to speak at length from the dock, and meted out to him the remarkably lenient sentence of five years in 'fortress confinement', a form of punishment reserved for offenders who had acted from 'honourable' motives, such as duellists.
Immediately after the failure of the putsch, Hitler had been plunged into a deep depression and gave serious thought to suicide. He even began a hunger strike in protest against his arrest and incarceration. But he pulled himself together with the help of his close political associates and wrote a lengthy defence of his actions for use in court. This formed the kernel of the far longer piece of writing that eventually became Mein Kampf. He was able to compose it because, under the astonishingly indulgent conditions of his sentence, he was allowed visitors – 325 of them altogether during his months of confinement. Some of them, notably Winifred Wagner, the English-born daughter-in-law of the composer Richard Wagner, brought him reams of paper and writing materials, while his patron and tutor Helene Bechstein provided a typewriter. Meanwhile, his visitors supplied him with so much food that his cell was known in the prison as 'the delicatessen'.
Hitler was a relatively uneducated man, and it used to be thought that he had dictated much of the text to his fellow inmate and slavish admirer Rudolf Hess, who had studied history and economics at the University of Munich. But in fact we now know that the writing was all Hitler's own work. His style was crude and unpolished, and the book is rambling, poorly structured and often difficult to follow. Its original title, which his publisher got him to drop in favour of the snappier Mein Kampf , was Four and a Half Years [of Struggle] Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice. Had he not followed his publisher's advice, the book might have sold fewer copies.
As he worked on the book, continuing to write after his release on 20 December 1924, Hitler began to take it away from the original concept of an 'accounting' with the people he blamed for frustrating his attempt at a coup in 1923. Short of money, and keen to establish his political credentials as leader of the ultra right in Germany, he decided to publish the book in two volumes, of which the first, more autobiographical one, came out on 18 July 1925 and the second, more programmatical one, on 10 December 1926. Hess and his wife, Ilse, along with an editor at the Völkischer Beobachter newspaper, devoted many hours to correcting the many linguistic mistakes and infelicities in the script and the proofs.
The Beer Hall Putsch and Hitler's subsequent trial for treason had transformed him from a local politician mainly known in Bavaria into a nationally notorious far-right agitator. But Mein Kampf was still fairly limited in its impact – hardly surprising, since the Nazis won less than 3 per cent of the vote in the national elections of 1928. Nevertheless, his newly acquired notoriety ensured that the first printing of volume one – 10,000 copies – was almost sold out by the end of 1925 and was quickly reprinted. Evidently readers were keen to know who Hitler was and where he came from. Lacking the autobiographical element, volume two did not do nearly so well. But a 'popular' one-volume edition published in 1930, at a time when the Nazis were rapidly gaining support, sold 228,000 copies by the end of 1932. By this time the party had risen to become the largest in the Reichstag, the national legislature.
Appointed head of a national coalition government on 30 January 1933, Hitler intimidated and outmanoeuvered his conservative-nationalist coalition partners and established a one-party dictatorship by the summer of 1933. Mein Kampf now became a key symbol of the ruling Nazi Party. Although sales to the general public fell off sharply after the first months of the regime, the book sold some 12.5 million copies between its publication and the end of Hitler's self-styled 'Third Reich' in 1945. There were deluxe editions, a braille edition for blind readers, and an edition printed on especially thin paper for soldiers to carry with them when they went into battle to ensure they knew what, and whom, they were fighting for. Altogether, eight million copies were printed during the war. Symbolically, as Hitler began to redefine the war as a struggle for Western civilisation against the Bolshevik hordes, instead of a drive for Germany's world domination, he decreed that the book should be printed in a roman typeface instead of the previously employed gothic one, known as Fraktur and employed mainly in Germany.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Those unwilling or unable to afford the book could still borrow it from a public, high-school or university library. In the first two or three years of the Nazi dictatorship, libraries of all kinds bought multiple copies, though not so much in south Germany, where the Catholic Church and its institutions were in control of acquisitions. The few available statistics show in similar fashion that borrowing figures were highest at the beginning of the Nazi dictatorship but then, like sales, fell off sharply. Many histories of Nazism lay considerable stress on the fact that under the Third Reich, a copy of Mein Kampf was supposed to be given to every pair of newlyweds upon their marriage, a custom originally established by the publisher to offload surplus copies because of disappointing sales. But many municipalities were too cash-strapped to afford to buy copies for this purpose, and by 1939 only about half of Germany's local authorities had actually purchased the book. Big cities such as Frankfurt, where there were no fewer than 7,000 marriages a year, told the publisher they could not afford it.
How many of all these millions of copies were actually read? After the war, claims were widespread in Germany that most people who had bought or been given the book had not actually bothered to read it. Echoing these claims, historians outside Germany opined that if they had actually taken the trouble to peruse it, Germans would have been better equipped to prevent Hitler's rise to power. Whether this would actually have been the case may be doubted: after all, nearly two thirds of the German electorate still voted against the Nazis in free national elections in 1932. But even if they did not read the book from cover to cover, millions of Germans would have been made familiar with its contents through the extracts and quotations constantly presented to them by national and local newspapers and magazines. In December 1936, a secret report smuggled out of Germany to the exiled Social Democratic leadership in Prague concluded that among the educated classes people had read the passages dealing with 'the history of Hitler's youth, perhaps also in addition a few sections on the Jews, but nobody reads the whole book'.
Nobody who knew anything about Mein Kampf during the Nazi years could doubt the virulence of Hitler's anti-Semitism. Here in full view was the grotesque and paranoid conspiracy theory that led Hitler to believe 'the Jew' – he always put the term in the singular, to emphasise his conviction that all Jews were driven by their racial character to act as a collective, spreading subversion and degeneracy wherever they lived – was to blame for all the ills and evils that beset the world, and especially Germany. Hitler refused to accept that Germany had lost the First World War militarily – it had fallen victim to a Jewish-led conspiracy of socialists on the home front, which had stabbed the army in the back (there was no truth in this allegation: German Jews had fought bravely on the front, and the army had been defeated on the battlefield, mainly by the rapidly growing superiority of the Western Allies in tanks).
For Hitler, the Jews were 'vermin', 'plague bacilli', not human at all. 'If one had on some occasion at the start of the war,' he wrote in an oft-quoted passage in volume two, 'held twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew polluters of the people down under poison gas, like hundreds of thousands of our best German workers from all classes and professions in the army at the front had to suffer, then the millionfold sacrifices of the front would not have been in vain.' The Jews – in fact, even if defined by race rather than religion, less than 1 per cent of the German population – must at the very least be deprived of their rights as German citizens.
More generally, Mein Kampf made it clear that democracy had to be destroyed and a dictatorship created under his leadership. Besides dealing with the Jews, he would introduce measures to 'purify' the German race by eugenic sterilisation of the 'unfit', and make extensive use of the death penalty to destroy any resistance to his rule. Germany, forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles from possessing an army of more than 100,000 men, along with combat aircraft and ships, would rearm and launch a second world war to reverse the defeat of the first one, conquering vast swathes of eastern Europe to provide 'living space', or, in other words, food and other resources for the German people.
Yet Mein Kampf, however much it might seem to foreshadow Hitler's future actions in retrospect, was very far from being a blueprint for action. Many of its more programmatic statements were to be ignored by Hitler once he came to power, from raising the real wages of the workers to defending the federated states against the central authority in Berlin. In fact, Hitler was to abolish the federal system under which Germany was governed and create a centralised political authority far more powerful than anything that had come before. His promise to protect the workers fell victim to his all-consuming drive to rearm. Mein Kampf 's promise to create an alliance with 'England' remained unfulfilled.
What emerged most clearly from the book's pages was Hitler's absolutism: decisions were 'unalterable', opponents would be 'annihilated', policies were 'unconditional'. The murderous hatred at the heart of Hitler's character was expressed in his unambiguous celebration of the unrestrained violence meted out by his stormtroopers to communist counter-demonstrators in the small Franconian town of Coburg the previous year. Nobody could be in any doubt about what would happen to German socialists and communists if he came to power, or to German Jews, to the mentally ill, to people with disabilities . Instead, the majority of Germans who belonged to other political parties thought the Nazis would calm down if they achieved power, as did politicians and statesmen in other countries. How wrong they were.
After the war, Mein Kampf was regarded by the victorious Allies as a dangerous book capable of inspiring a revival of Nazism. It was removed from libraries and banned from going on sale. In Germany itself, the Bavarian government, which held the copyright, refused to allow any copying or reprinting of the book. When the copyright expired at the end of 2015, seven decades after the year of Hitler's death, an extreme right-wing publisher issued a new edition, though the book was officially classified as harmful to the young and liable to incite the masses. Munich's Institute for Contemporary History published a huge, two-volume annotated 'study edition' in which a team of scholars pointed out the book's many lies and distortions and identified the sources for many of Hitler's beliefs. In truth, however, the world in which the future Nazi leader lived and wrote has long disappeared. Anti-Semitism remains a conspiracy theory that fuels prejudice against Jews and carries with it a dismaying potential for violence, but its roots, and the causes of its current flourishing, lie above all in hostility to the State of Israel and the policies its current, right-wing extremist government, is deploying in Gaza and Iran, rather than a book published a century ago by a politician whose name has long been a byword for evil.
Richard J Evans is regius professor of history at the University of Cambridge. His books include 'Hitler's People: The Faces of the Third Reich' (Allen Lane)
[See also: One year on, tensions still circle Britain's asylum-seeker hotels]
Related
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


ITV News
13 hours ago
- ITV News
Forgotten no more: Growing demand for UK memorial to India's WW2 Heroes
Words by ITV News Journalist in New Delhi, Sanjay Jha More than 2.5 million Indian soldiers served in the Allied forces during Second World War - forming the largest volunteer army in history. From the deserts of North Africa to the mountains of Italy and the jungles of Burma, they fought with courage and distinction. Yet, their sacrifice remains largely overlooked, both in India and abroad. Now, as the world nears the 80th anniversary of the war's end, calls are growing for a dedicated memorial in the United Kingdom to honour these forgotten heroes. Squadron Leader Rana TS Chhina, MBE, director of the Centre for Military History and Conflict Studies at the United Service Institution of India, strongly supports the initiative. "It is unfortunate that there is no dedicated memorial to the Indian Army in World War Two - neither in India nor in the UK. If such a memorial were to come up, it would be a very welcome step,' he told ITV News. Chhina also highlighted the complexity of India's wartime role. The British Viceroy unilaterally declared war on Germany in 1939 without consulting India's elected leaders. While many Indian political parties opposed fascism, they demanded independence in return for supporting the war effort - a demand Britain refused. Yet, millions still volunteered. "The Indian story in World War Two is slightly more complicated," Chhina said to ITV News. "The Viceroy declared war without consulting political leadership. While Indian leaders opposed fascism, they believed a nation fighting for democracy abroad deserved its own freedom.' Despite these tensions, Indian soldiers served with honour in nearly every major theatre of the war. Mandeep Singh Bajwa, Military Affairs Columnist at The Indian Express, echoed this sentiment. 'A total of four million Indians fought on the Allied side in both world wars. 176,000 gave up their lives. The country's contribution in terms of manpower, goods, and money was phenomenal,' he told ITV News. 'But very few people in Europe or America know this. It's high time a magnificent monument is built in Britain to commemorate those who fought, and the governments of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh should all be involved in its unveiling.' Momentum for such a memorial has grown since British artist Mahtab Hussain launched a petition on calling for recognition of Indian soldiers' wartime service. "The Indian soldiers who fought in World War Two have been forgotten for too long," Hussain wrote in the appeal. "Their stories, their bravery, their sacrifice - they deserve a permanent memorial that acknowledges their unique contribution, especially here in London." While the Cenotaph and the Memorial Gates on Constitution Hill acknowledge Commonwealth contributions, critics argue they fail to reflect the scale and specificity of India's role in the war. India's own record of remembrance is similarly lacking. Journalist Sudhir Arora of the Garhwal Post has questioned why India continues to sideline its Second World War veterans. "Why don't we remember our Second World War dead?" he wrote. "Millions served bravely on multiple fronts, but our national memory has largely erased their courage." Many analysts attribute this to a post-independence discomfort with India's colonial past. There was reluctance to honour a military effort seen as part of British imperialism. But that narrative, critics argue, misses the broader point: Indian soldiers also fought against fascism. Their sacrifice, they say, is not just a British or colonial story - it's an Indian one. Although India inaugurated a National War Memorial in 2019, it honours only post-independence martyrs. The graves of Indian World War Two soldiers, maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission at the Delhi War Cemetery, remain largely forgotten and rarely visited. As Chhina noted, remembrance must go beyond mere physical structures. "This isn't only about a monument in stone," he said to ITV News. "It's about restoring honour, shaping collective memory, and telling a complete story of India's role in the world."


Economist
15 hours ago
- Economist
Israeli sentiment on the war in Gaza is shifting
During the annual fast for the sacking of Jerusalem on August 3rd, worshippers mourn the Jewish temple the Roman army destroyed nearly 2,000 years ago. This year Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel's national-security minister, led thousands of Jews in prayer on Temple Mount and promised to rebuild the temple in place of the Dome of the Rock, a Muslim shrine. But on a rooftop on the other side of the city some Jews lament destruction past and present. 'Gaza is desolate and laid ruin. We are the new Romans,' a religious leader with the Faithful Left, a group that has flourished during the war, tells his flock.


Economist
15 hours ago
- Economist
Why it's a pain to take a plane in Africa
Middle East & Africa | Flying low Photograph: Reuters Aug 7th 2025 | Lagos-Accra-Freetown | 4 min read F reetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, is as far from Lagos, Nigeria's commercial hub, as Berlin is from Athens. But whereas a round-trip ticket for the three-hour flight from the German capital to the Greek one can be had for around €150 ($173), getting from Lagos to Freetown took your correspondent two flights, a ferry and almost $2,000. The trip included a seven-hour layover in Ghana and required changing from a Nigerian to a Togolese airline. The cheaper option, albeit longer by 20 hours, would have been to fly across the continent to Ethiopia before taking another plane west towards Sierra Leone. This article appeared in the Middle East & Africa section of the print edition under the headline 'Plane pain' → A glimpse of Gaza's miserable future The civil war shows no signs of ending More and more people are outraged by the conduct of their government And how scientists are scrambling to stop it The territory will remain at the mercy of outsiders for years to come Civil war need not be an insurmountable obstacle The chair of the Democratic Alliance has a lot to say—and a lot to do